No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
eGLU-Box Mobile: A Smartphone App for Usability Testing by Italian Public Administration Webmasters
Abstract
Smartphones and tablets now offer consumers unique advantages such as portability and accessibility. Developers are also working with a mobile-first approach, and are prioritizing mobile applications over desktop versions. This study introduces eGLU-box Mobile, an application for performing a drive usability test directly from a smartphone. An experimental study was conducted in which the participants were divided into two groups: an experimental group, which used the new mobile application from a smartphone, and a control group, which used the desktop application from a computer. The participants’ behavior was assessed using explicit (self-report questionnaires) and implicit measures (eye movement data). The results were encouraging, and showed that both the mobile and desktop versions of eGLU-box enabled participants to test the usability with a similar level of UX, despite some minimal (although significant) differences in terms of satisfaction of use.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
This work shows the user experience (UX) assessment of a web-based platform for the semi-automatic usability evaluation of websites, UTAssistant, which is primarily addressed to workers in public administration (PA). The study is part (Phase 1) of a multiple assessment methodology which consists of four phases in total: (1) UX in laboratory conditions; (2) Usability evaluation in remote online conditions; (3) Usability evaluation in workplace conditions; and (4) Heuristic evaluation. In Phase 1, a UX study in laboratory conditions was carried out. Participants' UX of a PA website navigation through UTAssistant was evaluated by both traditional self-report usability assessment tools (SUS and UMUX) and bio-behavioral measurement techniques (facial expression recognition and electroencephalography). Results showed that using the UTAssistant usability assessment tool for webpages did not affect users' perceived usability in terms of self-reports and affective states, which were mostly neutral for all the assessment session. However, frontal alpha asymmetry EEG's scores showed a higher sensitivity of UTAssistant users to the duration of the trial, with a decrease in motivation displayed as the trial ensued. However, this result did not seem to affect emotional experience.
Since 2012, usability testing in Italian public administration (PA) has been guided by the eGLU 2.1 technical protocols, which provide a set of principles and procedures to support specialized usability assessments in a controlled and predictable way. This paper describes a new support tool for usability testing that aims to facilitate the application of eGLU 2.1 and the design of its User eXperience (UX) evaluation methodology. The usability evaluation tool described in this paper is called UTAssistant (Usability Tool Assistant). UTAssistant has been entirely developed as a Web platform, supporting evaluators in designing usability tests, analyzing the data gathered during the test and aiding Web users step-by-step to complete the tasks required by an evaluator. It also provides a library of questionnaires to be administered to Web users at the end of the usability test. The UX evaluation methodology adopted to assess the UTAssistant platform uses both standard and new bio-behavioral evaluation methods. From a technological point of view, UTAssistant is an important step forward in the assessment of Web services in PA, fostering a standardized procedure for usability testing without requiring dedicated devices, unlike existing software and platforms for usability testing.
Even if the benefits of the usability testing are remarkable, it is scarcely adopted in the software development process. To foster its adoption, this paper presents a Web platform, UTAssistant, that supports people, also without skills in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), in evaluating Web site usability.
Nowadays, practitioners extensively apply quick and reliable scales of user satisfaction as part of their user experience (UX) analyses to obtain well-founded measures of user satisfaction within time and budget constraints. However, in the human-computer interaction (HCI) literature the relationship between the outcomes of standardized satisfaction scales and the amount of product usage has been only marginally explored. The few studies that have investigated this relationship have typically shown that users who have interacted more with a product have higher satisfaction. The purpose of this paper was to systematically analyze the variation in outcomes of three standardized user satisfaction scales (SUS, UMUX and UMUX-LITE) when completed by users who had spent different amounts of time with a website. In two studies, the amount of interaction was manipulated to assess its effect on user satisfaction. Measurements of the three scales were strongly correlated and their outcomes were significantly affected by the amount of interaction time. Notably, the SUS acted as a unidimensional scale when administered to people who had less product experience, but was bidimensional when administered to users with more experience. We replicated previous findings of similar magnitudes for the SUS and UMUX-LITE (after adjustment), but did not observe the previously reported similarities of magnitude for the SUS and the UMUX. Our results strongly encourage further research to analyze the relationships of the three scales with levels of product exposure. We also provide recommendations for practitioners and researchers in the use of the questionnaires.
In this paper we present the UMUX-LITE, a two-item questionnaire based on the Usability Metric for User Experience (UMUX) [6]. The UMUX-LITE items are This system's capabilities meet my requirements and This system is easy to use." Data from two independent surveys demonstrated adequate psychometric quality of the questionnaire. Estimates of reliability were .82 and .83 -- excellent for a two-item instrument. Concurrent validity was also high, with significant correlation with the SUS (.81, .81) and with likelihood-to-recommend (LTR) scores (.74, .73). The scores were sensitive to respondents' frequency-of-use. UMUX-LITE score means were slightly lower than those for the SUS, but easily adjusted using linear regression to match the SUS scores. Due to its parsimony (two items), reliability, validity, structural basis (usefulness and usability) and, after applying the corrective regression formula, its correspondence to SUS scores, the UMUX-LITE appears to be a promising alternative to the SUS when it is not desirable to use a 10-item instrument.
The book we propose is not only a classic handbook or a practical guide for evaluation practictioners that presents and discusses one or a set of evaluation techniques for assessing diferent aspects of interaction. Our proposal is at first a new theoretical perspective in the human computer interaction evaluation that aims to integrate, in a multisteps evaluation process, more techniques for obtaining a whole assessment of interaction. Our theorical perspective is supported by an historical and experimental argumentation. Secondary our book by merging a user center perspective with the idea of user experience and with the growing need of disabled users partecipation in the evalaution and in the improvment of the HCI, proposes a reconceptualization of the web, social and portable tecnologies in a new category the “psychotecnologies” with specific properties.
The integrated methodology of intercation evalaution is proposed as a framework for practictioners in order to evaluate all the aspects of the interaction from the accessibility (i.e. the more obejective point of view) to the staisfaction (i.e. the most subjective poitn of view).
The evalaution techniques we analyse and the evaluation tools we propose in the book are supported by experimental exemplifications and are correlated to their application in the integrated methodology. Our goal is not only to presents the correct application of the techniques, but also to promote a standard evaluation process in which disabled and not disabled peoples are involved in the assessment.
The aim of this study is to build up a verbal protocol technique for samples of visual impaired users in order to overcome the limits of concurrent and retrospective protocols. Indeed, when blind users surf using a screen reader and talk about the way they interact with the computer, the evaluation is influenced by a structural interference. Users are force to think aloud and listen to the screen reader at the same time. The technique we improved, called Partial Concurrent Thinking Aloud (PCTA), integrates a modified set of concurrent verbalization and retrospective analysis. One group of 6 blind user and another group of 6 sighted users evaluated the usability of a website by PCTA. Estimating the number of users needed with an asymptotic test, we found out that the two groups had an equivalent ability of identifying usability problems, both over 80%. The result suggest that PCTA, even respecting the properties of classic verbal protocols, also allows to overcome the structural interference and the limits of concurrent and retrospective protocols when used with screen-reader users.
Examining several sources of data on smartphone use, this paper presents evidence for the popular conjecture that mobile devices
are “habit-forming.” The form of habits we identified is called a checking habit: brief, repetitive inspection of dynamic content quickly accessible on the device. We describe findings on kinds and frequencies
of checking behaviors in three studies. We found that checking habits occasionally spur users to do other things with the
device and may increase usage overall. Data from a controlled field experiment show that checking behaviors emerge and are
reinforced by informational “rewards” that are very quickly accessible. Qualitative data suggest that although repetitive
habitual use is frequent, it is experienced more as an annoyance than an addiction. We conclude that supporting habit-formation
is an opportunity for making smartphones more “personal” and “pervasive.”
In the study entitled "Web usability evaluation with screen reader users: Implementation of the Partial Concurrent Thinking Aloud technique" (Federici et al. 2010), we have proposed a modified protocol of usability evaluation technique for blind users, which integrates the features of the concurrent and the retrospective techniques. This new technique, called partial concurrent thinking aloud (PCTA), while respecting the properties of classic verbal protocols, overcomes the structural interference and the limits of concurrent and retrospective protocols when used with screen reader users. In order to facilitate understanding and acquisition of the PCTA's technique for practitioners and researchers, we have video recorded three different verbal protocols by visualizing five experimental sections. In the first two videos, we have compared a concurrent with a retrospective's verbal protocol of a sighted user, showing the difference of the verbalizations provided by the user in these two conditions. The third video shows the structural interference of the screen reader, during a blind user concurrent thinking aloud. In the last two videos, we show the difference of a blind user behaviour when PCTA or retrospective protocol is adopted. The videos clearly visualize the advantage of the PCTA use in respect of the two other protocols. In conclusion, the visualization of the PCTA technique confirms that this new verbal protocol promotes and guarantees a more user-driven usability assessment with disabled people, by better involving screen reader users, overcoming the structural interference and the limits of the concurrent and retrospective protocols.
The System Usability Scale (SUS), developed by Brooke (Usability evaluation in industry, Taylor & Francis, London, pp 189-194, 1996), had a great success among usability practitioners since it is a quick and easy to use measure for collecting users' usability evaluation of a system. Recently, Lewis and Sauro (Proceedings of the human computer interaction international conference (HCII 2009), San Diego CA, USA, 2009) have proposed a two-factor structure-Usability (8 items) and Learnability (2 items)-suggesting that practitioners might take advantage of these new factors to extract additional information from SUS data. In order to verify the dimensionality in the SUS' two-component structure, we estimated the parameters and tested with a structural equation model the SUS structure on a sample of 196 university users. Our data indicated that both the unidimensional model and the two-factor model with uncorrelated factors proposed by Lewis and Sauro (Proceedings of the human computer interaction international conference (HCII 2009), San Diego CA, USA, 2009) had a not satisfactory fit to the data. We thus released the hypothesis that Usability and Learnability are independent components of SUS ratings and tested a less restrictive model with correlated factors. This model not only yielded a good fit to the data, but it was also significantly more appropriate to represent the structure of SUS ratings.
This paper illustrates the heuristic evaluation of a web-based tool for usability testing for Public Administrations called eGLU-box. eGLU-box is an online platform aiming at supporting practitioners in the process of designing usability tests, analyzing data, and helping step-by-step participants to complete assessment tasks. Web users of Public Administrations can report their perceived quality of experience by completing a library of questionnaires shown to them by eGLU-box at the end of the test. This work is part of a multi-step user experience (UX) evaluation methodology to assess the platform. The UX evaluation methodology of eGLU-box uses standard and bio-behavioural evaluation methods. This work shows the results of the heuristic evaluation of eGLU-box involving five human factors experts and 20 practitioners working in Italian Public Administrations. Findings show that most of the problems are rated as minor problems and related to Nielsen’s heuristic, “visibility of the system.” Only 9% of problems are rated as major problems. These major problems are related to the “problematic match between system and the real world” heuristic. Evaluators provided indications for improvements that will be applied for the next version of the platform.
You're being asked to quantify your usability improvements with statistics. But even with a background in statistics, you are hesitant to statistically analyze their data, as they are often unsure which statistical tests to use and have trouble defending the use of small test sample sizes. The book is about providing a practical guide on how to solve common quantitative problems arising in usability testing with statistics. It addresses common questions you face every day such as: Is the current product more usable than our competition? Can we be sure at least 70% of users can complete the task on the 1st attempt? How long will it take users to purchase products on the website? This book shows you which test to use, and how provide a foundation for both the statistical theory and best practices in applying them. The authors draw on decades of statistical literature from Human Factors, Industrial Engineering and Psychology, as well as their own published research to provide the best solutions. They provide both concrete solutions (excel formula, links to their own web-calculators) along with an engaging discussion about the statistical reasons for why the tests work, and how to effectively communicate the results. *Provides practical guidance on solving usability testing problems with statistics for any project, including those using Six Sigma practices *Show practitioners which test to use, why they work, best practices in application, along with easy-to-use excel formulas and web-calculators for analyzing data *Recommends ways for practitioners to communicate results to stakeholders in plain English. © 2012 Jeff Sauro and James R. Lewis Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The results of a multi-year research program to identify the factors associated with variations in subjective workload within and between different types of tasks are reviewed. Subjective evaluations of 10 workload-related factors were obtained from 16 different experiments. The experimental tasks included simple cognitive and manual control tasks, complex laboratory and supervisory control tasks, and aircraft simulation. Task-, behavior-, and subject-related correlates of subjective workload experiences varied as a function of difficulty manipulations within experiments, different sources of workload between experiments, and individual differences in workload definition. A multi-dimensional rating scale is proposed in which information about the magnitude and sources of six workload-related factors are combined to derive a sensitive and reliable estimate of workload.
Companies spend lots of time and money on complex tools to assess customer satisfaction. But they're measuring the wrong thing. The best predictor of top-line growth can usually be captured in a single survey question: Would you recommend this company to a friend? This finding is based on two years of research in which a variety of survey questions were tested by linking the responses with actual customer behavior--purchasing patterns and referrals--and ultimately with company growth. Surprisingly, the most effective question wasn't about customer satisfaction or even loyalty per se. In most of the industries studied, the percentage of customers enthusiastic enough about a company to refer it to a friend or colleague directly correlated with growth rates among competitors. Willingness to talk up a company or product to friends, family, and colleagues is one of the best indicators of loyalty because of the customer's sacrifice in making the recommendation. When customers act as references, they do more than indicate they've received good economic value from a company; they put their own reputations on the line. And they will risk their reputations only if they feel intense loyalty. The findings point to a new, simpler approach to customer research, one directly linked to a company's results. By substituting a single question--blunt tool though it may appear to be--for the complex black box of the customer satisfaction survey, companies can actually put consumer survey results to use and focus employees on the task of stimulating growth.